After careful consideration, I have no idea what you mean. Are you referring to ‘goes beyond implicit’? Landsburgs first sentence in his essay? I suspect you didn’t read the Krugman post he was talking about. Here’s a link:

well, that answers Michael’s question. You can now return to stalking the hosts.

J. W.August 31, 2011 at 2:11 pm

Krugman: “This isn’t some novel idea, by the way — it’s the standard theory of public finance during war, going all the way back to Ricardo. And the logic of wartime finance applies equally to natural disasters.

“So the bottom line is that basic, regular economics says that Cantor isn’t making sense.”

Landsburg quotes that last bit earlier in his post, and it is that to which he refers in your quotation of him. So yes, it does appear in Krugman’s post, and no, Landsburg doesn’t have a problem with the concept of a direct quote (at least, not in the way that you suggest).

But wait: Eric Cantor is the one claiming that there’s a principle here, that any spending rise on disaster relief must be offset with current spending cuts. I’m critiquing that assertion; there is no such principle. I should have been clearer on that.

But, but, but wait just a minute!!! I thought Krugman believed that natural disasters (e.g., being hit by a hurricane, having Mrs Leary’s cow start a fire that razes your house, etc.) actually created wealth by calling otherwise idle resources into play. In that case, rather than spending money on so-called disaster relief for those areas hit by the storm, shouldn’t we be considering a windfall profits tax, since the benefits of the storm were unjustly limited to certain areas. Recall that the term “windfall” itself derives from precisely this sort of unearned benefit.